Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries
Articles Posted in California Courts of Appeal
California v. Arredondo
A jury found defendant-appellant Jason Arredondo guilty of 14 sex offenses against four girls, namely, his three stepdaughters, F.R., A.J.R., A.M.R., and another girl, M.C., a friend of F.R. Defendant was sentenced to 33 years plus 275 years to life in state prison. In the published portion of this opinion, the Court of Appeal addressed defendant’s claim that his Sixth Amendment right to “face-to-face” confrontation was violated when the trial court allowed a computer monitor on the witness stand to be raised by several inches to allow F.R. (age 18), A.J.R. (age 14), and A.M.R. (age 13), to testify without having to see defendant. The Court found no confrontation clause violation. The parties agreed the matter had to be remanded for resentencing on counts 1, 12, and 14. The Court affirmed in all other respects. View "California v. Arredondo" on Justia Law
Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System
Plaintiff Aram Bonni, a surgeon, sued St. Joseph Hospital of Orange (St. Joseph), Mission Hospital Regional Medical Center (Mission), and other defendants for, inter alia, retaliation under Health and Safety Code, section 1278.5 (the whistleblower statute). Plaintiff alleged defendants retaliated against him for his whistleblower complaints by summarily suspending his medical staff privileges and conducting hospital peer review proceedings. In response to plaintiff’s complaint, defendants filed a special motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP statute) to strike plaintiff’s retaliation cause of action, asserting his claim arose from the protected activity of hospital peer review proceedings. The court granted defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion as to both St. Joseph and Mission. After review, the Court of Appeals concluded plaintiff’s retaliation claim under the whistleblower statute arose from defendants’ alleged acts of retaliation against plaintiff because he complained about the robotic surgery facilities at the hospitals, and not from any written or oral statements made during the peer review process or otherwise. “Discrimination and retaliation claims are rarely, if ever, good candidates for the filing of an anti-SLAPP motion. This case is no exception.” Defendants’ motion to strike failed on prong one of the anti-SLAPP test (probability to prevail), and the Court reversed the order granting defendants’ motion on that basis. View "Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System" on Justia Law
FilmOn.com v. DoubleVerify, Inc.
FilmOn filed suit against DoubleVerify for trade libel, slander, and other business-related torts, alleging DoubleVerify falsely classified FilmOn's websites under the categories "Copyright Infringement-File Sharing" and "Adult Content" in confidential reports to certain clients that subsequently cancelled advertising agreements with FilmOn. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's grant of DoubleVerify's motion to strike pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. The court held that the trial court properly found DoubleVerify engaged in conduct in furtherance of its constitutional right of free speech in connection with an issue of public interest. View "FilmOn.com v. DoubleVerify, Inc." on Justia Law
People v. Bloomfield
A taxi driver reported to police he had driven defendant to locations in Marin County. Defendant attempted to pay the $73.53 cab fare with a prepaid debit card, but the charge did not go through. When police searched defendant, they located a prepaid Visa card with defendant’s name and another individual’s name on it. A week later, defendant attempted to purchase dinner. A restaurant employee contacted police because he remembered defendant from an earlier incident when she attempted to purchase food using a stolen credit card. When the police searched defendant’s car, they located several credit cards with numbers removed or altered. Several cards had defendant’s name on them. Defendant pled guilty to two felony counts of access card forgery, misdemeanor petty theft, and a second-degree burglary charge in exchange for dismissal of other counts and other cases. Defendant later sought resentencing, to reduce her felony convictions for access card forgery to misdemeanors under Penal Code 1170.18(a). The trial court denied the petition as to the access card forgery charges, but granted it as to the petty theft conviction. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting defendant’s argument that exempting access card forgery from Proposition 47 relief violated her equal protection rights under the U,S, and California Constitutions. View "People v. Bloomfield" on Justia Law
ZL Technologies v. Doe
ZL provides email archiving, eDiscovery, and compliance support to businesses nationwide. Glassdoor operates a website on which people may anonymously express opinions regarding employers. Individuals representing themselves as current or former ZL employees posted anonymous reviews on Glassdoor‘s website criticizing ZL‘s management and work environment. ZL filed a complaint against those individuals, naming them as Doe defendants and alleging libel per se (Civil Code 45) and online impersonation (Penal Code 528.5) to the extent any of them was not a ZL employee. ZL served a subpoena on Glassdoor, requesting identification and contact information for defendants. Glassdoor objected, arguing: violation of the First Amendment and California Constitution privacy rights; the posted statements were “protected opinion, patently hyperbolic, not harmful to reputation,” or uncontested statements of fact; Glassdoor‘s reputation would be harmed by disclosure; and, ZL was obligated to make a prima facie showing the statements were libelous before it could compel disclosure. The court denied ZL’s motion to compel. More than a year later, the court dismissed the action because of ZL‘s failure to serve the defendants. The court of appeal reversed. While an author‘s decision to remain anonymous is protected by the Constitution, a reasonable fact finder could conclude all of the reviews contained statements that declared or implied provably false assertions of fact, providing a legally sufficient basis for a defamation cause of action. View "ZL Technologies v. Doe" on Justia Law
California v. Roberts
A jury convicted defendant Antwaren Roberts of attempted murder and related offenses arising out of an incident in which he shot Krystal Sharkey with a handgun. It also found that Roberts committed the crimes for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of Penal Code section 186.22. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeal addressed Roberts's contention that the California Supreme Court's recent decision in California v. Elizalde, 61 Cal.4th 523 (2015), precluded admission of certain un-Mirandized statements Roberts made during custodial booking interviews in which he admitted gang membership. Although the interviews occurred years before the crimes with which Roberts was now charged, when he was under arrest for other crimes, the Court concluded a Miranda violation does not evaporate with the passage of time such that the statements become cleansed and admissible as to future misdeeds. Accordingly, the Court reversed the jury's findings as to the gang enhancement. In all other respects the Court affirmed the judgment after addressing Roberts's additional contentions in the unpublished portion of the opinion. View "California v. Roberts" on Justia Law
California v. Carothers
Defendant Bobby Carothers, then-serving a prison term of 25 years to life imposed in 2008 under the three strikes law, appealed the denial of his petition for resentencing under Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. He argued the trial court erred in finding he was not eligible for resentencing because he was convicted of murder in Texas in 1978. Under the Act, a prior conviction for a number of enumerated offenses, including “[a]ny homicide offense, including any attempted homicide offense, defined in Sections 187 to 191.5” of the Penal Code, rendered an inmate ineligible for resentencing. Defendant’s argued: (1) only California convictions could render an inmate ineligible for resentencing under the Act; and (2) even if a prior out-of-state conviction could render an inmate ineligible for resentencing, the record of defendant’s Texas murder conviction did not necessarily show he committed a murder as that crime was defined under California law. The Court of Appeals concluded a prior out-of-state conviction would render an inmate ineligible for resentencing under the Act if the crime committed in the other state would have disqualified the inmate had that crime been committed in California. However, because the crime defendant was convicted of committing in Texas might not have been a murder in California, an enumerated disqualifying offense, the trial court incorrectly concluded he was ineligible for resentencing. The Court reversed for a determination as to whether or not resentencing him would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. View "California v. Carothers" on Justia Law
Association for L.A. Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court
The Pitchess statutes, which require a criminal defendant to file a written motion that establishes good cause for the discovery sought, does not violate constitutional due process. In this case, the LASD created a so-called "Brady" list of deputies whose personnel files contain sustained allegations of misconduct allegedly involving moral turpitude or other bad acts relevant to impeachment. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court that injunctive relief was proper in this case, but disagreed with its analysis of the constitutional question presented and thus with the limited scope of the injunction ordered. The court granted in part the petition for writ of mandate and modified the preliminary injunction. The trial court must strike from the injunction any language that allows real parties or any of them to disclose the identity of any individual deputy on the LASD's Brady list to any individual or entity outside the LASD, even if the deputy is a witness in a pending criminal prosecution, absent a properly filed, heard, and granted Pitchess motion, accompanied by a corresponding court order. The trial court must also strike any language that purports to address real parties' power or authority with respect to a Brady list involving non-sworn employees. View "Association for L.A. Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court" on Justia Law
People v. Turner
After Turner refused to comply with an officer’s request that Turner leave a restaurant, he was arrested for interfering with a business establishment under Penal Code section 602.1(a). During an inventory search, a revolver, ammunition, and methamphetamine were found in Turner’s duffel bag. After considering the parties’ argument on whether there was probable cause to arrest Turner for various forms of trespass, a magistrate denied a motion to suppress without giving its reasons for doing so. A jury convicted him of various crimes and the trial court placed him on probation for three years. The court of appeal affirmed. The court properly denied the motion to suppress because the contraband was discovered in an inventory search after an arrest supported by probable cause and properly admitted evidence of Turner’s prior possession of the same type of ammunition because it impeached his specific testimony suggesting that the police planted the contraband in this case. View "People v. Turner" on Justia Law
Menefield v. Bd. Of Parole Hearings
This case is about the validity of a regulation governing a circumstance the Board of Parole Hearings (the board) can consider when determining whether a person convicted of a crime punishable with an indeterminate life sentence is unsuitable for parole: California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 2402(c)(6). In challenging the validity of the regulation, petitioner contended: (1) the regulation lacked clarity because it did not define “serious misconduct,” and thus failed to inform prisoners they may be denied parole for committing minor or administrative infractions; and (2) he should have been permitted to amend his petition for a writ of mandate to include a claim that the regulation was unconstitutionally vague. The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of petitioner’s writ petition on grounds that he failed to state a claim for relief because the regulation at issue does not lack clarity. Furthermore, petitioner did not state sufficient facts to support a claim that the regulation was constitutionally vague. View "Menefield v. Bd. Of Parole Hearings" on Justia Law